Showcases, tie games, time limits--anybody got game?

[swingaway]

Originally Posted by Softball Guru

You would have to lower the teams entered because there is only 24 hours in a day, I know let's lengthen the daythat would help matters..

Guru

Assuming the tournaments are all played to capacity - you are correct. Most tournaments are being played below capacity these days - especially NSA.

However, your statement does support the fact that the organizations (some, anyway) are paying more attention to the revenue a tournament generates than the quality of the game.

When you play a whole 12U tournament and not one game is played past the 5th inning, there is a problem with the time limit, in my opinion. Especially a 1-0 championship game!

[softballphreak]

Many games would be shortened by run rule; many would be pretty close to a predictable time--about an hour and a half. The ones that did run over would probably be the most exciting to watch.

But I would rather see a 5 or 6 inning game than a time limit game. Especially with no time outs.

The Challengers attempted something like I'm talking about this past season I believe. I'm thinking they might pull it off this coming year. All you top teams keep your eyes and ears open to the possibility. Wow, that could be bigtime; think of the fans and coaches that would draw! Think of the awesome competition--full out competition. To find out who really is who they seem to be!

[JavelinCatcher]

I am not following the logic here. I understand games are better when you play a complete game but I don't see how this has been turned into a draw for college coaches. I really don't think (I have been wrong once or twice before) the college coaches care who wins or loses. They are there to see as many girls as they can in a short amount of time. I have very rarely seen a college coach stay for a complete game unless they are looking at several girls.

There have been multiple threads on this board talking about how good it is for coaches to know exactly where the girl will be and when. Showcases with drop dead times are perfect for that. I can't imagine having a girl write a college coach and say I will be on this field at this time unless the previous games run over and then it could be a hour or two later before I play but please hang around.

There have been just as many threads on this board that talked about coaches wanting to see how players react to losing. Do they get an attitude, be a poor sport (not shake hands) or do they handle it with class and keep their head up? It is a whole lot easier to be happy and a team player when you are winning...

One last thing, if there is a time limit, don't the coaches get to see the girls performing under pressure anyway as time is running out same as if it is the bottom of the 7th?

Forgot to add one more thing... I don't like the idea of only having 'the top teams' in a tournament. There are many great ball players who cannot afford to play for the 'top' teams so they play for teams that may not be as good but stay close to home. A college coach can see a good players potential not matter what team she is on. Are you okay with closing the door on those girls just because of their financial situation?

[softballphreak]

Originally Posted by JavelinCatcher

I am not following the logic here. I understand games are better when you play a complete game but I don't see how this has been turned into a draw for college coaches. I really don't think (I have been wrong once or twice before) the college coaches care who wins or loses. They are there to see as many girls as they can in a short amount of time. I have very rarely seen a college coach stay for a complete game unless they are looking at several girls.

There have been multiple threads on this board talking about how good it is for coaches to know exactly where the girl will be and when. Showcases with drop dead times are perfect for that. I can't imagine having a girl write a college coach and say I will be on this field at this time unless the previous games run over and then it could be a hour or two later before I play but please hang around.

There have been just as many threads on this board that talked about coaches wanting to see how players react to losing. Do they get an attitude, be a poor sport (not shake hands) or do they handle it with class and keep their head up? It is a whole lot easier to be happy and a team player when you are winning...

One last thing, if there is a time limit, don't the coaches get to see the girls performing under pressure anyway as time is running out same as if it is the bottom of the 7th?

I've been to plenty of tournaments in past years where there was no time or at least a reasonable time limit if there was and college coaches were there. And games ran over many times. The coaches were still there.

There is just a different atmosphere in a tournament where there is a winner. The spirit of competition is just at a higher level. You can just feel it.

I'm not even talking about showcase here--that has been beat to death.

What I, and a lot of others I believe, would like to see are tournaments where the girls can compete to their fullest.

There are simply not enough true tournaments. Those who have experienced it understand what I mean. Those who participate in both know the difference. I think of one as acting (admittedly at a high level) and the other as competing unhindered (kicking butt, if you will).

[LBlues 1]

Originally Posted by softballphreak

I've been to plenty of tournaments in past years where there was no time or at least a reasonable time limit if there was and college coaches were there. And games ran over many times. The coaches were still there.

There is just a different atmosphere in a tournament where there is a winner. The spirit of competition is just at a higher level. You can just feel it.

I'm not even talking about showcase here--that has been beat to death.

What I, and a lot of others I believe, would like to see are tournaments where the girls can compete to their fullest.

There are simply not enough true tournaments. Those who have experienced it understand what I mean. Those who participate in both know the difference. I think of one as acting (admittedly at a high level) and the other as competing unhindered (kicking butt, if you will).

You should attend Dynamites, ASA qualifiers, ASA States, Boulder, NSA States actually most NSA tourneys as all are elimination events, I believe. In fact, all tournaments in ASA, NSA and the other organization except Showcases are played as elimination, right? I know SCASA has tons of spring, summer, and fall tourneys.
Most teams today have learned to adapt to the product offered and to better serve the kids that want to attend college and play ball. Is it perfect, NO, could it use some adjustments, yes but until a better solution is found, we will continue to play under the present concept.

[marlinfan1]

Originally Posted by softballphreak

Seems like I remember him getting a little flak for his efforts. But it sounds like what I'm talking about. I didn't get to that tournament but I hope it was free of unnecessary time limits and tie games. There's no place for that in the type of competition I'm talking about.

In the type of tournament I'd like to see you win or lose; even if it takes until one in the morning. Losers go home early; winners get to sleep late!

There are a lot of reminders of how strong the Challengers have been over at Grand Slam. Anyone who remembers the Ray McGee days knows what that was like. That's what I would love to see again.

.....hey folks, I'll be quick on this one........the NC Challengers have been run by Andy and Cathy Stewart for 10 yrs ish. They have done an awesome job and I'm giving them props!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fishman

[softballphreak]

Originally Posted by marlinfan1

.....hey folks, I'll be quick on this one........the NC Challengers have been run by Andy and Cathy Stewart for 10 yrs ish. They have done an awesome job and I'm giving them props!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fishman

The way my post was worded I can see where one might misinterpret it as a slight to Andy. That was definitely not my intent. My intent was to distinguish Ray McGee and the team he had in the beginning years of the Challengers.

I was with Andy when he took over the reins. He's a good man. On more than many occasions I've seen him dig in his own pockets to keep the Challengers going.

I coached with the Challengers many years and even have a few kids I help that are currently Challenger players. I've always considered myself a Challenger first.

When you're putting it to text it doesn't always come out as intended.

[treck]

If you want to make sure you play more innings and are trully concerned about making sure you maximise the number of innings and time played, then in the pre-game meeting tell that to the umpire and other coach. Ask him to keep the game moving and that you support any move he makes to keep the game moving.

Then you as a coach, hurry your players in and out, limit your own dead time, use runners for the catcher when you should and remind the umpire during the game. Cut down on all the signaling, standing out of the box, petty conferences, throwing the ball around. And most importantly, do not be a hypocrit. When time is running out, don't YOU be the one calling the time outs, tieing shoes and changing players to kill time. How many of you are willing to do that?

If the 1 min between innings, batter keeping a foot in the box and rules that are in place are enforced, you would play more innings. Coaches seem to always want to blame someone else, but honestly the coaches and umpires determine the number of innings you play, not the TD.

Ty

[karlrocket]

Take the fastest girl off each team, & run the 60 for the winning point! Give the scouts a chance to pull out their stop-watches.